<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (5) TMI 169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379441</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand digital multifunction printing and copying machines could not be provisionally released because the importer had not obtained the required DGFT authorisation, import licence or BIS registration, even though environmental compliance steps had been completed. Section 110A of the Customs Act was held inapplicable since it applies only after seizure under Section 110, whereas the goods were merely warehoused under Section 49 at the importer&#039;s request. A cited precedent was distinguished on facts because it concerned seized goods in a different setting. The direction for provisional release on bond and security was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379441</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand digital multifunction printing and copying machines could not be provisionally released because the importer had not obtained the required DGFT authorisation, import licence or BIS registration, even though environmental compliance steps had been completed. Section 110A of the Customs Act was held inapplicable since it applies only after seizure under Section 110, whereas the goods were merely warehoused under Section 49 at the importer&#039;s request. A cited precedent was distinguished on facts because it concerned seized goods in a different setting. The direction for provisional release on bond and security was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>